The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-12-14
in Making Up Budgets Miscalcula.
tons Are Not Criminal.
Ninutest Details of the Issue Taken
Up and Passed Upon.
Legal Gentlemen Wonder at the Great
Depth OF the Opinion, Which Sur
passes Their Expectations
from the Learned Judge.

The chains have been broken, the city
has triumphed. Strict and unreasonable
constructionists are enlightened. The
Digit Of research and profound learning
has been turned upon the great Taxing
District question. 1t justifes the admin
istration in applying the surplus revenue
10 public necessities. II has been many
day since the chancery court was so
crowded as on yesterday morning. The
attendants were not OF the idle, curious
which finds loaiing place in the
ordinary courtroom where criminals are
dealt with. They came from the leading
professions, business circles and best peo-
pie generally; absorbing interest and ex-
pectancy drew them thither intcres, in
! question vital in its importance TO the best
form OF government ever brought into eN-
ktence. IL also involved the good name
those officials in whom 81 Of every 100
Nemphians have implicit confidence and
DIE highest esteem.
"A The case was that Of George Mitchell vs..
NIcssrs. D. l.. MADDEN aud james Lee, IT,,
Dire and police commissioners, and An
brew j Harris, custodian of the city funds.
III was brought before Chancellor Estes
4 two weeks ago in the shape OF bill
4 and answer, and was only presented ON
both sides. Tho judge heard the ne
spcctive counsel very patiently, gave his
mind over To q thorough study OF the Is
sues, and yesterday delivered the follow
ng opinion:
va THE OPINION ~ FUGL.
o.orc Mitchell ". the Taxing District Of shelby
q ,ouniy
This case Is presented an BILL answer aud
exhibits. 10 involves ON application by q
. sitizcn and tax payer Of the Taxing District
81 shelby county for an injunction against
tho exercise by the municipal authorities Of
fhc district Of powers In the appropriation
bud use Of public funds which he contends
'ihcy do not legally possess. The questions
raised have been earnestly aud deliberately
argued, both orally and Ia writing by COM
i plalnants solicitor and the attorney gem
T" crgl 81 the district ON the one side, and the
city attorney and able associate counsel ON
the other.
The case involves difficult legal questions
and important interests Of public concern
mcnt, aud have given Il careful aud labori.
Gus consideration la order that ] might
arrive nj satisfactory conclusions.
The right OF complainant ~ n citizen and
tax payer 10 maintain the suit and invoke
contested in argument, aud ~ thoroughly
well settled By the right ~ authority. q
Dillon on Mum Cor See. Oh ct scq.)
The Iconccdod facts a. they appear from
the bin, answer and exhibits, are, Ia short,
that there Is
Az ACCUMULATED FUND
IN the hands OF the county trustee ~ So
30 "a arising from fine. ioriciturcs, mar
ket rents and inspection icc.," and O large
accumulation 81 back iHsys assessed in
former years, which bee - ',iinquicnt, aud
have from year t1 year objected. I'M
der Section oi the Amendment " the Tax
ing District charter approved March ~,
1870 u Is provided that 'all monies derived
from fines and forfeiturcs. market rents aud
inspection fees shall be paid over 10 said
trustee (meaning the county tutstcc) and
held Tor payment OF salaries Of commission
crs, engineers, printing, stationery and other
/ expenses" etc The charter and amend
II mcnts contain no express provision touch
ing back taxes and grants no express power
a. the municipal authorities 10 ~ or appro-
pirate them IN any manner. IL Il shown
that no part u the accumulated fund arising
Il from fines forfciturcs, etc, y needed for the
/ purposes TO which they arc devoted by the
third section Of the act above quoted, and
that all such purposes are iully satisfied. II
4 II further shown that annually the municipal
taxes actually collected each year, aud that
the accumulated back taxes arc not needed
for any Of the purposes TO which they were
Originally explicitly devoted. Under these
circumstance the rT-ng District commits
tionor claim that they arc legally entitled
90 use these funds for pressing municipal
purposcs-cspecially for sanitary and garbage
L service, which IL appears stands sadly In
need Of them.
II Is shown that the levy Of taxes for "the
board Of health aud garbage service depart
ment for The current year Is
SUBSTANTIALLY EXHAUSTED
ard that the district auth rites have been
compelled to suspend This important service
for the want 81 ". The complainant
challenges the log power OF the municipal
authorities 10 usr any part OF either Of these
funds, even Tor this pressing aud important
service, and this Is The contest involved IN
the case.
The complainant makes this contention
nrninsi iho exercise of the power IN question
by invoking tho rule Of strict construction of
the ohanen " municipal cofpUfalluns. aud
by appfnlirr ~ tic Ncrn limitation Of pow.
ofs Ia the Isying District laws.
Before adysling " these Limitations Goa